Advertisement

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

, Volume 26, Issue 6, pp 1980–1987 | Cite as

Does task sustainability provide a unified measure of subjective task difficulty?

  • David A. RosenbaumEmail author
  • Bill V. Bui
Brief Report
  • 132 Downloads

Abstract

What accounts for the subjective difficulty of a task? It is easy to suggest ad hoc measures, such as how many individuals can do the task, how long it takes them to do it, how likely they are to complete it, how much attention it requires, and so on. But having such ad hoc measures may miss the point that it is possible to judge the relative difficulty of different kinds of tasks, suggesting that there may be a common basis for judging task difficulty. If there is such a common basis, it might be used to compare the difficulties of different kinds of task. We tested two hypotheses about what the common basis might be. One was that time serves this role. This hypothesis was attractive because time is amodal and previous studies have provided support for the hypothesis that time might be an index of task difficulty. The other hypothesis was new. According to the new hypothesis, the subjective difficulty of a task corresponds to its estimated sustainability. We obtained results consistent with the time hypothesis, but our data were less supportive of the sustainability hypothesis.

Keywords

task switching or executive control timing subjective difficulty action 

Notes

References

  1. Ackerman, P. L. (Ed.). (2011). Cognitive fatigue: Multidisciplinary perspectives on current research and future applications. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  2. Droll, J. A., & Hayhoe, M. M. (2007). Trade-offs between gaze and working memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33, 1352–1365. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.33.6.1352 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Dunn, T. L., Lutes, D. J., & Risko, E. F. (2016). Metacognitive evaluation in the avoidance of demand. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 42, 1372–1388. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000236 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Feghhi, I., & Rosenbaum, D. A. (2019). Judging the difficulty of different kinds of tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. Advance online publication. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000653 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Fitts, P. M. (1964). Perceptual-motor skill learning. In A. W. Melton (Ed.), Categories of human learning (pp. 243–285). New York, NY: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fournier, L. R., Coder, E., Kogan, C., Raghunath, N., Taddese, E., & Rosenbaum, D. A. (2018). Which task will we choose first? Precrastination and cognitive load in task ordering. Attention, Perception & Performance. Advance online publication. doi: https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-018-1633-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gescheider, G. A. (1997). Psychophysics: The fundamentals. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  8. Gray, W. D., Sims, C. R., Fu, W. T., & Schoelles, M. J. (2006). The soft constraints hypothesis: A rational analysis approach to resource allocation for interactive behavior. Psychological Review, 113, 461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kool, W., McGuire, J. T., Rosen, Z. B., & Botvinick, M. M. (2010). Decision making and the avoidance of cognitive demand. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 139(4), 665-682. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020198 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Logan, G. D. (1988). Toward an instance theory of automatization. Psychological Review, 95, 492–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Luce, R. D. (1959). Individual choice behavior: A theoretical analysis. New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
  12. Pattyn, N., Neyt, X., Henderickx, D., & Soetens, E. (2008). Psychophysiological investigation of vigilance decrement: Boredom or cognitive fatigue? Physiology & Behavior, 93, 369–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Pleskac, T. J. (2015). Decision and choice: Luce’s choice axiom. In J. D. Wright (Ed.), International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences (Vol. 5, pp. 895–900). New York, NY: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Potts, C. A., Pastel, S., & Rosenbaum, D. A. (2018). How are cognitive and physical difficulty compared? Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 80, 500–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Schneider, W., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: I. Detection, search, and attention. Psychological Review, 84, 1–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Siegel, S., & Castellan, N. J. (1988). Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of CaliforniaRiversideUSA

Personalised recommendations